Match Day Thread General matchday thread.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
brb said:
I assume because I can't be arsed to read up any of it, that the City owners are suing the Prem because they want to spend their money, by whatever means how they chose? So does this come down to some element of business law, where they will ask is any other industry subject to these rules, if not, then under what law do they exist? I assume because they will argue they are being prevented from their business growing by splashing the cash when they want, how they want and as long as they can prove they have that money, then what's the problem, unfair maybe, illegal not, so is 'unfair' discrimination, I'd say yes, we've all seen the taunts about arab owned clubs. They'll win and own the rest of the league for the next decade at least, resulting in more sucky tears. :bandit:
Click to expand...

It's not so much that it's illegal, but there are rules in place in football to try and make it competitive. So the same rules don't apply to ordinary commercial companies because they are operating in a free market economy and not a sporting context.

I suppose the closet thing to it in commercial law is the monopolies and mergers act. Which tries to ensure that businesses don't gain an unfair advantage by squashing the competition.

City signed up to the same rules as everybody else, but they've deliberately flouted them to gain a sporting advantage. Financial doping.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duggie2000
pieguts said:
Had a quick Google mate and 17 out of 20 PL clubs are owned by billionaires or consortium’s of billionaires. IMO this is where your argument falls down, as if the rules are relaxed then Leicester (and others) will likely be in exactly the same place with bigger clubs still outspending you. All that happens is the level of debt clubs carry just gets greater and it’s more likely owners start to walk away when they realise that it’s unsustainable.
Click to expand...

Not if they bring in rules like I've mentioned in the first paragraph of my post ..but I'd settle for them not labelling something 'fair play' that is designed to obstruct a real level playing field ...

As ludicrous as labelling a competition 'Champion's League' when the majority of clubs in it aren't Champions ...

... plus I've never complained about being outspent - that's a fact of life ... and it didn't stop us being in the top four Englush clubs success wise over the last decade...

... and as I've said countless times - you simply need a legally binding guarantee from owners that all o/s liabilities must be settled before exiting - banks would be happy enough to provide a bond - and the owner's you mention (including ours) could easily afford it - 'exit charges' are common enough in business ...
 
Last edited:
Bodinki said:
****ing covid.
Fosse is a piss poor replacement as site clown. No offence Fosse, but your level of buffoonary pales in comparison to Ol' Les the Hat.
HIAG was our Cartman.
Matth was our Timmy
That would make Piskie Kyle and Tobes Stan.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't know a buffoon from a baboon mate - Trigger from Milton Keynes - no offence <laugh>
 
PINKIE said:
It's not so much that it's illegal, but there are rules in place in football to try and make it competitive. So the same rules don't apply to ordinary commercial companies because they are operating in a free market economy and not a sporting context.

I suppose the closet thing to it in commercial law is the monopolies and mergers act. Which tries to ensure that businesses don't gain an unfair advantage by squashing the competition.

City signed up to the same rules as everybody else, but they've deliberately flouted them to gain a sporting advantage. Financial doping.
Click to expand...

Your very last line, but City didn't sign up to the rules, the rules didn't exist at the time.
 
FosseFilberto said:
Well done Nostradufus ... you'll be predicting it might rain this month next <doh>
Click to expand...
ok calm ya tits!
Never seen someone get so triggered over being told they arent as stupid as someone else.
You must feel pride in your title.....and not the PL title.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bumps
Bumps said:
Some of you have a really odd outlook on this

I do not agree with FFP but what I think is totally irrelevant

the rules were in place
If any club wishes to challenge all this there are processes to follow

What they shouldn’t do is flout the rules (no matter how stupid) then complain or fight when caught

they should have followed the correct process whilst adhering to the existing rules otherwise chaos will reign

I believe City have every right to challenge the decisions but suing the league doesn’t sit right with me - what next ?

football seems to be moving further and further away from the game I once loved
Click to expand...

What about all the clubs in the lower leagues that go under on a regular basis, I don't remember you caring about them, you only care about the cream aka the premier league.
 
Morning everyone btw, I don't really care about all this bolloxs, I'm interested to see the legal outcome though of the action against the premier league. I always said it would only be a matter of time before someone sues them, although I never expected it to be over this lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: FadgewackeR
Bodinki said:
ok calm ya tits!
Never seen someone get so triggered over being told they arent as stupid as someone else.
You must feel pride in your title.....and not the PL title.
Click to expand...

You haven't 'seen' anything you knob jockey .. you've just made wild assumptions based on nothing but your interpretation of my posts - I'm just having my breakfast whilst chuckling at both your arrogance ... and ignorance ... who do you support again? ... oh yes - let's apply a stereotype then shall we? <laugh>

PS FYI and the avoidance of doubt ...my serious posts so far today are the one that Pieguts quoted and then my response to his - concepts that I do think might improve the current confused state of the game - you're welcome <cheers>
 
FosseFilberto said:
You haven't 'seen' anything you knob jockey .. you've just made wild assumptions based on nothing but your interpretation of my posts - I'm just having my breaking chuckling at both your arrogance ... and ignorance ... who do you support again? ... oh yes - let's apply a stereotype then shall we? <laugh>

PS FYI and the avoidance of doubt ...my serious posts so far today are the one that Pieguts quoted and then my response to his - concepts that I do think might improve the current confused state of the game - you're welcome <cheers>
Click to expand...

Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning eh?

Ask Spurly for a drag on his spliff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
brb said:
Your very last line, but City didn't sign up to the rules, the rules didn't exist at the time.
Click to expand...

Not sure why people seem to be directly conflating this with the 115 charges.

It's entirely different and relating to a recent rule change around related parties sponsorship and not FFP as a whole.

Good luck to them I say. Anything which upsets the istoree clubs is fine by me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FadgewackeR, brb and Big Ern
Libby said:
Wonder how successful Arsenal would have been had they not bribed their way into the top flight in 1920.

Were there rules against that?
Click to expand...
Originally there were rules about paying players being illegal, didn't stop the likes of Liverpool doing it though. And City were the big club in Manchester until United got a sugar daddy. Funny how fans who go on about their clubs 'history' forget some of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FadgewackeR, FosseFilberto and brb
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back